On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 09:53:42AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On Jul 11, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having udev disable itself on reboot and leaving the system
non-functional is not an acceptable solution. Most systems have
I disagree, this is what udev has done
On Jul 12, Jakob Bohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(P.S. your disabling code apparently forgets to disable udev when running
on kernel 0.x or 1.x, but this is truly minor and not worth a bug number).
The current libc does not even support 2.0, so this is not relevant.
And the need to permit the
On Jul 11, Manoj Srivastava [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Having udev disable itself on reboot and leaving the system
non-functional is not an acceptable solution. Most systems have
I disagree, this is what udev has done since last year and so far
nobody ever complained, so it's obviously
On Jul 11, md wrote:
Having udev disable itself on reboot and leaving the system
non-functional is not an acceptable solution. Most systems have
I disagree, this is what udev has done since last year and so far
nobody ever complained, so it's obviously not such a bad solution.
I
Hi,
Having udev disable itself on reboot and leaving the system
non-functional is not an acceptable solution. Most systems have
multiple kernel images installed, having only some of them working,
and breaking the whole system if the system boots some other image (I
have unstable,
5 matches
Mail list logo
